2023-01-31T14:05:11Z David Moreau-Simard :
Hi,
Answer in-line but I also want to extend an invititation to everyone here
to join #ansible-packaging on libera.chat (or #packaging:ansible.com on
Matrix) which is a low signal-to-noise ratio channel to talk about
Ansible packaging things such
2023-01-31T13:02:09Z Sagi Shnaidman :
Hi, Orion
Thanks for raising this question.
I use both ways - either ansible distro with all-inclusive, or ansible
(distro or "core") with specific collection installed separately when I
need a newer version of collection, for example. I wonder if it's
On Tue Jan 31, 2023 at 15:01 +0200, Sagi Shnaidman wrote:
Hi all,
> Hi, Orion
> Thanks for raising this question.
Indeed!
> I wonder if it's possible to continue to update collections to the
> newest versions anyway. If someone wants to use the collection version
> provided in "big ansible",
On Wed Dec 14, 2022 at 15:45 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Hello folks.
>
> A new major version of tox was released. The bump form version 3 to
> version 4
> should be flawless to users but breaks all the plugins that have not
> been
> updated to the new API yet.
>
> I would like to avoid the need
On Tue Dec 13, 2022 at 16:47 +0100, Leon Fauster via epel-devel wrote:
Hi Leon,
> I noticed that on a RHEL8 workstation the deprecated and removed package
> from EL8.0 - libssh2, does not get substituted by the package from epel:
>
> libssh2-1.8.0-8.module+el8.0.0+4084+cceb9f44.1.x86_64
> vs
>
On Mon Dec 5, 2022 at 21:52 +0100, Jitka Plesnikova wrote:
> Could be the following file added to the package epel-rpm-macros (or
> anything like this) for EPEL 9?
It could, but it might be better to include this in a subpackage of
epel-rpm-macros or as a separate perl-generators-epel component.
Hi John,
On Sun Nov 27, 2022 at 08:51 +, john tatt via epel-devel wrote:
> Hi everyoneI'll like to have Compiz / Emerald available on RHEL/Rocky aso
>
> is there a chance for this to happen ?
> Thank you
Please follow the standard EPEL Package Request[1] procedure and let us
know if you
On Wed Nov 23, 2022 at 00:52 CST, Carl George wrote:
> I would also ask that feedback be provided there instead of as email
> replies here on the list.
I don't think there's been a formal discussion about moving EPEL
discussions over to the forums. We already have communication split
between the
On Thu Oct 6, 2022 at 19:11 +0200, Neal Gompa wrote:
> The cmake3 package has all the macros from the mainline cmake package in
> Fedora.
>
> It should be fully compatible, just swap %cmake_* for %cmake3_*.
Oops, I responded before I saw this.
--
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His
On Thu Oct 6, 2022 at 12:02 CDT, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> I'm not sure either Paul or myself really care enough about EL7 to
> maintain a divergent spec.
The %cmake3* macros work everywhere.
--
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Friday, September 9, 2022 Christopher Engelhard wrote:
> I found it useful to ship the nextcloud package as a module, particularly in
> EPEL, but if after multiple years there really are only 12 packages in the
> repo and even those may or may not work then that is a pretty clear
> argument for
Sep 7, 2022 9:04:57 AM Petr Pisar :
What we could do is write a notice about the end of life into the
module
summaries and rebuild the modules. That way users running "dnf module
list"
could see the message. But people upgrading after the module removal
wouldn't
see anything. We would have
On Monday, September 5, 2022 Mark E. Fuller wrote:
> Can someone point me to a good resource on how (if permitted) I can make
> appropriate compat(?) packages to allow for two major versions of the
> same package to be available?
> Is this allowed for EPEL?
You can package compat packages as long
On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 Troy Dawson wrote:
> EPEL2RHEL is part of the RHEL 8 and 9 new package workflow. When a RHEL
> maintainer wants to add a package to RHEL 8 or 9 they start a "new package
> workflow". There are several automations that happen when they start that
> workflow. One of
On Friday, August 26, 2022 Steve Cossette wrote:
> Now, I decided to contribute further by building the package for epel8 and
> epel9. I have been following the guide on
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Maintenanc
> e_Guide/, but did not know that doing so does
Looping in epel-devel
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Need help: Building a package requiring python >=
3.7 on epel8
From: Steve Cossette
To: packag...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Good day to you all!
I am still pretty much new at packaging, for fedora or,
n 22/08/27 04:03PM, Frank Crawford wrote:
> While building two related new packages for EPEL9 with a chainbuild,
> the second one failed, however, now I am trying to work out how to
> specify the completed package in the build for the second package.
>
> I have tried creating a side-tag and add
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 7:49:15 PM CDT Neal Gompa wrote:
> > * The Pagure API does not allow tagging existing issues. I had planned to
> > liberally use tags to manage the issues.
>
> What? You can do this with the "update issue information" API call:
> https://pagure.io/api/0/#issues-tab
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 4:07:29 PM CDT Troy Dawson wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2022 at 12:31 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 06, 2022 at 10:05:40PM +0200, Maxwell G via epel-devel wrote:
> > > We could create an issue tracker for this. Packagers would have to
>
Hi EPEL folks,
In the past couple EPEL SCo meetings, we have been discussing adding a
new package retirement policy for EPEL packages.
However, we have not found a satisfactory solution to the scenario where
a packager no longer wishes to maintain their package in EPEL, but the
package does not
On 22/07/19 07:00PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> apparently, all EPEL 8 Python 3.8 and 3.9 packages that should only provide
> python3.8dist(...)/python3.9dist(...) also provide python3dist(...).
>
> That means, any Python 3.6 package that BuildRequires python3dist(...) might
> get a Python 3.8/3.9
Hi everyone,
The weekly EPEL Steering Committee meeting is scheduled for today at 20:00 UTC
(4:00 p.m. EDT for those in the U.S.). It will take place in #fedora-meeting on
Libera.chat and bridged to #meeting:fedoraproject.org on Matrix.
Hope to see you all there!
--
Thanks,
Maxwell G
On 22/07/19 07:00PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> I propose that we ship the fix and rebuild all affected packages.
I agree. This issue has the potential to result in confusing, hard to
debug issues for packagers (mainly) but also users.
> + new packages that have not yet reached the either EPEL 8 repo
On Friday, June 17, 2022 9:03:07 AM CDT Patrick Riehecky via epel-devel wrote:
> This way any extra ideas for actions can be added easily later on.
> Perhaps a "check" or "status" to see if CRB is enabled/disabled/not-
> what-the-os-ships.
+1. Having some logic to check if CRB is actually enabled
On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 5:26:11 PM CDT Richard Shaw wrote:
> I think the non-response maintainer process should be started.
It seems that someone has already done just that:
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2808
--
Thanks,
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His
signature.asc
Description:
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 5:55:34 PM CDT Stewart Smith wrote:
> Unfortunately I don't think we can [help with EPEL 7] given the
> likely packaging differences
I'd be surprised if there's major differences, unless AL 2 backports newer go
macros.
> the containerd version differences
containerd in
Hi everyone,
I have been de-facto maintaining containerd in Fedora as a member of the go-
sig for a little while now, as the previous maintainer no longer has time to
do. In addition to the Fedora branches, this package also exists on EPEL 7.
That branch has not been maintained for a while and
On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 2:54:51 PM CDT Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> without messing with config files (which I
> hate, because that means newer crb.repo changes won't be picked up).
I thought files marked `%config(noreplace)` don't get updated automatically
even
if the user didn't modify
Jun 7, 2022 12:09:15 AM Igor Raits :
> The new ansible (5.x) is in the EPEL stable which works great until
> one tries to use some non-trivial modules which require some Python
> modules to be available… At that point you realize that the new
> Ansible is built against Python 3.8 (default is 3.6)
Jun 4, 2022 4:01:42 PM Troy Dawson :
> 3 - We are taking the choice away from users
> After I stopped and thought about it, there are plenty of scenarios where
> people want epel for just one or two packages, which do not require crb.
>
> 4 - All the many small side cases.
> auto-enabling crb
On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 12:53:36 PM CDT Maxwell G via epel-devel wrote:
> I think it's better to add `Requires:
> python%{python3_pkgversion}-rpm-macros`.
> To be fair, they both do effectively the same thing: set %__python3 to the
> correct value. In any case, I submit
On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 6:56:41 PM CDT Orion Poplawski wrote:
> Sure, except I know nothing about how docs.fp.o works ;)
The source code for the EPEL docs page is here[1]. Honestly, I'm not super
familiar with it either :).
[1]: https://pagure.io/epel/tree/main
> It looks like it's hard-coded
On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 7:08:13 PM CDT Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> I don't think that is going to work unless the rpm spec
> file support would be backported to previous releases
> (without another macro that tries to do some magic).
I don't follow. What "rpm spec file support" are you referring
On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 3:11:39 PM CDT Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> We see no reason why not to do that. It should not cause any harm. If
**you** know of any reason we should not propose
> this, please tell us now.
I already brought this up previously, but how will we handle license
identifiers
On Monday, May 23, 2022 11:18:38 PM CDT Orion Poplawski wrote:
> I've been coming to the thinking that naming the SRPMS
> python3X-%{srcname}-epel is a better choice. This makes modifying
> original Fedora specs simpler.
I think that makes sense, especially considering that these packages will
May 16, 2022 8:32:58 PM Maxwell G :
On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 3:14:56 PM CDT Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> In epel8 I will be converting the 'ansible' epel8 package into the
> upstream ansible-5 meta collections package (which also pulls in
> ansible-core).
>
Hi everyone,
I have rebased ansible to
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 1:05:20 PM CDT Leon Fauster via epel-devel wrote:
> PS: Is it only my impression or do others feel also the same. Starting
> with EL8 the expenses just for the platform (distribution) gets more and
> more attention in our daily work. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 9:58:33 AM CDT Leon Fauster via epel-devel wrote:
> https://paste.centos.org/view/06187bdb
>
> adapts
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-passlib/blob/main/f/python-passlib.spec
>
> to build it locally (for the sake of progress I disabled the tests/nose
>
On Monday, May 16, 2022 2:41:57 PM CDT Leon Fauster via epel-devel wrote:
> with the "upcoming" ansible-core migration, I wonder if its possible to
> provide a python-passlib package (or stream) for the python38
> environment (ansible-core dependency).
Yes, it's possible. You can create a
On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 3:14:56 PM CDT wrote:
> In epel8 I will be converting the 'ansible' epel8 package into the
> upstream ansible-5 meta collections package (which also pulls in
> ansible-core).
>
Hi everyone,
I have rebased ansible to ansible 5 in epel8 and submitted a Bodhi update[1].
40 matches
Mail list logo
